As we all know, the mother-in-law relationship has been in the spotlight since ancient times, as it is often one of the most difficult family relationships to deal with. After the death of the husband, the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law went to court for a dispute over the return of the original goods, and the court sentenced it (click to jump directly), this case was in the first instance, and the mother-in-law's claim was rejected, but do you think it is over? 
Of course not, the mother-in-law Yuan Mou, who was in her old age, she, sue, sue, too. Lawyer Wang Weihong intervened in the case again, and she did her best to provide legal support and assistance to her daughter-in-law, and finally won the case.
Enter the second trial
The appellant, Yuan, appealed to the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court against the civil judgment rendered by the Beijing Fengtai District People's Court against the dispute over the return of the original goods with the appellees Du (his grandson) and Wang (his daughter-in-law).
Yuan's request was to revoke the first-instance judgment and request a new trial or change of judgment to support the appellant's claim, that is, to require his grandson and daughter-in-law to immediately move out of the house in question, remove their belongings, and return the house to Yuan.
The facts and reasons are as follows:
The court of first instance found that the facts were unclear, that the Declaration was not written by the appellant, and that the appellant had not had his fingerprints taken. The appellant's signature and the words "Yuan xx" in the Declaration were not written by the same person. Since the appellant did not conduct fingerprint identification, the court of first instance erred in finding the authenticity of the Declaration. The court of first instance did not conduct a strict review of the Declaration, and did not inquire about the reasons for its formation and the process of its formation.
Even if the court of first instance legally presumes the authenticity of the Declaration, it should further analyze whether the Statement has legal effect. As the owner of the right to use the house in question, the appellant has no right to dispose of the ownership of the house in question, and the disposition of the ownership of the house (the house in question is only a rented public rental house) in the Declaration is invalid.
Even if the last line of the Declaration is restrictively interpreted as "permitted for residential use", on the one hand, the Appellant did not change the tenant of the premises involved in the case to the Appellee, and on the other hand, the Statement did not stipulate the period of residential use. More importantly, the appellant is still alive and still has the right to ask the appellee to vacate the house at any time in order to solve his own housing problems.
About the Statement
My name is Yuan xx, female, xx years old, living in Haidian District xxx. Due to the demolition of Beijing West Railway Station, the existing "house involved in the case" is owned by the eldest son Du XX and grandson Du X, and is hereby established. The inscription is "Mother Yuan xx (fingerprint), May 4, 2004 (fingerprint)".
Result of the second instance
The above-mentioned "Statement" was submitted by Yuan's grandson and daughter-in-law to the court of first instance at the trial of first instance, to prove that Yuan established a basis on May 4, 2004, making it clear that the house involved in the case was owned by his son and grandson, so Du and Wang had the right to live in the house, and Yuan had no right to ask them to move out. At the first-instance trial, Yuan said that he had never seen the Statement, and clearly expressed his disagreement and non-cooperation when the first-instance court requested fingerprint identification.
Lawyer Wang Weihong said accordinglyAs civil subjects, parties involved in civil activities should abide by the principle of good faith, that is, the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their own claims. Although Yuan denied the authenticity of the Statement, she refused to cooperate with the fingerprint identification, so she should bear the adverse consequences caused by the lack of evidence.
Based on the above facts, the court of first instance made a judgment rejecting Yuan's claim. The court of second instance confirmed the facts ascertained by the court of first instance and upheld the original judgment.
Case analysis
Lawyer Wang Weihong believes thatThe focus of the dispute in this case is the authenticity and legal effect of the Declaration.
With regard to the authenticity of the Declaration, the court of second instance confirmed that the authentication procedure conducted by the court of first instance was correct and confirmed this.
Regarding the legal effect of the Statement, it is clearly stated in the Statement that Yuan stated that the house was owned by his son and grandson. Although there is no title certificate yet, there is still an expectation of obtaining ownership in the future. Moreover,"Ownership" encompasses a variety of interests, which necessarily include the right of residence. Without obtaining a title deed, Yuan admitted that his son and grandson had the right to live in the house. Therefore, Yuan had no right to ask Du and Wang to leave and return the house.